What about places where the light-skinned people are looked upon more favorably than darker-skinned ones? The Philippines, for example, most of the rich people, actors and actresses, media, high-end retail & waitresses are light-skinned. Certain jobs, you need not apply if your skin is dark (they want pictures with job applications).
I hear tell that Brazil and Mexico are the same way.
[QUOTE=pizzabrat]
Why? Sounds as “racist” as the conflict between the Shiites and the Sunnies - i.e., not at all.
[/QUOTE]
Hutu and Tutsi are different phenotypes; they look very different in facial features, bone structures, and body build.
[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
Hutu and Tutsi are different phenotypes; they look very different in facial features, bone structures, and body build.
[/QUOTE]
So do the French and the British, but was it racism when they warred?
How about Darfur? Racially motivated genocide is going on there too.
[QUOTE=pizzabrat]
So do the French and the British, but was it racism when they warred?
[/QUOTE]
I’m getting a sneaking suspicion that you’d like to define the term sufficiently narrowly enough so that the answer to the question “which country is most racist?” is “the United States,” but that it is indeed the only country that can truly be called racist.
Is that the end goal? If so, why don’t we skip ahead and propose that.
[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
I’m getting a sneaking suspicion that you’d like to define the term sufficiently narrowly enough so that the answer to the question “which country is most racist?” is “the United States,” but that it is indeed the only country that can truly be called racist.
[/QUOTE]
No, I think that question is ridiculous, and pointless; which is why I didn’t even try to answer it. If I thought that U.S. was the correct answer, I would have said so, and given rationales.
I just have a semantic peeve the usage of “racism” to describe any type of animosity between two people or groups of people. And a political peeve with the tendency of whites to scrape up “gotcha” examples of non-white racism.
[QUOTE=HubZilla]
What about places where the light-skinned people are looked upon more favorably than darker-skinned ones? The Philippines, for example, most of the rich people, actors and actresses, media, high-end retail & waitresses are light-skinned. Certain jobs, you need not apply if your skin is dark (they want pictures with job applications).
I hear tell that Brazil and Mexico are the same way.
[/QUOTE]
It’s that way with a lot of cultures but it’s not always racial. In a pre-industrial agrarian society, light skin is a sign of wealth and status – because it means you don’t have to work in the fields and get suntanned.
[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
Jeez, we’ve spent all this time and effort broadening the application of the term “racism” and now you want to go back to the specific, literal definition? Let’s make up our minds, here!
[/QUOTE]
Go back to what? I’m sorry, but in English the word “Racism” has never meant, exclusively, “prejudice against phenotypically different groups.” Nor has “race” ever just meant “white or black or asian or some other physically different group.”
[QUOTE=RickJay]
Go back to what? I’m sorry, but in English the word “Racism” has never meant, exclusively, “prejudice against phenotypically different groups.” Nor has “race” ever just meant “white or black or asian or some other physically different group.”
[/QUOTE]
“Never” as in “not in your lifetime”? Here’s a history of racism, as founded in the nineteenth century.
[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
Hutu and Tutsi are different phenotypes; they look very different in facial features, bone structures, and body build.
[/QUOTE]
They used to look very different but there has been considerable mixed breeding since the Belgians arrived. They were the ones that documented the differences between the two cultures. They were the ones that gave the Tutsis the good jobs. The Hutus were tired of getting stepped on. The problem now has less to do with phenotype than with an artificial segragation created by the Belgians many years ago.
[QUOTE=pizzabrat]
“Never” as in “not in your lifetime”? Here’s a history of racism, as founded in the nineteenth century.
[/QUOTE]
That link goes to the entry for “scientific racism.” The Wiki entry on “racism” is considerably broader.
Not that Wikipedia is necessarily the best source of information for this sort of debate.
[QUOTE=HubZilla]
What about places where the light-skinned people are looked upon more favorably than darker-skinned ones? The Philippines, for example, most of the rich people, actors and actresses, media, high-end retail & waitresses are light-skinned. Certain jobs, you need not apply if your skin is dark (they want pictures with job applications).
I hear tell that Brazil and Mexico are the same way.
[/QUOTE]
Every time I see a big-budget Bollywood movie on SCOLA (the international channel) all the people in it look like Europeans. Likewise with all the newscasters and reporters on the Mexican news shows. I have always suspected that the lighter-skinned people in those countries have an easier time making it in the media.
[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
Every time I see a big-budget Bollywood movie on SCOLA (the international channel) all the people in it look like Europeans. Likewise with all the newscasters and reporters on the Mexican news shows. I have always suspected that the lighter-skinned people in those countries have an easier time making it in the media.
[/QUOTE]
I always figured it was because colonists in the days of yore were European. They were the conquerers: militarily, economically, and technologically. Therefore, it was “better” for natives to emulate them and be like them. Lighter skin meant you were closer to the (formerly) ruling Europeans, or descended from them.
BrainGlutton has given me pause, as he described how more wealthy people didn’t need to be in the sun and got less tanned.
Regardless, I would still count it as racism, as the shading of the skin can put you in better or worse positions.
[QUOTE=pizzabrat]
And a political peeve with the tendency of whites to scrape up “gotcha” examples of non-white racism.
[/QUOTE]
Well I, for one, would never do such a thing. It might dilute my White Guilt.
No true Scotsman would ever be a racist, after all.
[QUOTE=pizzabrat]
No, I think that question is ridiculous, and pointless; which is why I didn’t even try to answer it. If I thought that U.S. was the correct answer, I would have said so, and given rationales.
I just have a semantic peeve the usage of “racism” to describe any type of animosity between two people or groups of people. And a political peeve with the tendency of whites to scrape up “gotcha” examples of non-white racism.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting…and my peeve is that you didn’t take any umbrage at “Nazi” for an answer where the two competing groups were phenotypically as alike as the Hutus and the Tutsi. Hutus and Tutsis are two very distinct populations, in their minds, at least–that’s why they slaughter one another.
It has nothing to do with “gotchas” and assuming that it does exposes your color-consciousness, as well as a patronizing attitude toward peoples of dark skin color that somehow they need you jumping in to reassure them that when dark-skinned populations butcher each other’s clans, it’s not racism. You may think “they” all look alike, but African’s don’t and they are as population/clan/race-conscious as the rest of the peoples of the world.
[QUOTE=pizzabrat]
No, I think that question is ridiculous, and pointless; which is why I didn’t even try to answer it. If I thought that U.S. was the correct answer, I would have said so, and given rationales.
I just have a semantic peeve the usage of “racism” to describe any type of animosity between two people or groups of people. And a political peeve with the tendency of whites to scrape up “gotcha” examples of non-white racism.
[/QUOTE]
The racism American whites have for blacks (and other races) simply pales in comparison to a lot of other cultures and countries. Zimbabwe, Brazil, and Japan for some examples. Or places where simple skin shading opens and closes doors.
[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
Interesting…and my peeve is that you didn’t take any umbrage at “Nazi” for an answer where the two competing groups were phenotypically as alike as the Hutus and the Tutsi. Hutus and Tutsis are two very distinct populations, in their minds, at least–that’s why they slaughter one another.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not that well versed in the conflict in Rwanda, but which side is bent on world domination based on a hierarchal categorization of mankind that places them at the top, like the Nazis were? Or was WWII just about Nazis vs. Jews? Is that what World War II was? The German war between the Nazi’s and the Jews?
Sorry, I can’t figure out how noticing that some whites are transparently over-eager to trumpet non-white examples of racism reveals a patronizing attitude in myself towards dark skinned people. I’m not trying to reassure anyone of anything. You must have misunderstood my attempt to correct a misuse of language to mean that I’m apologizing for the Rwandan genocide. I’m intellectually able to find a conflict somewhere unjust and horrible while rejecting incorrect assessment of it.
[QUOTE=Paul in Saudi]
Sorry guys, I like the Saudis, they like me. All in all, I would suppose the Koreans are the most racist. They make subtle distinctions that are beyond ordinary human understanding.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not going to argue that Koreans aren’t racist but can you expand on what you are talking about? I would have thought that and mention of Koreans as racists would remind you of the Japanese, after all they were the Nazis of the East and after WWII the Germans profusely recanted while the Japanese have not.
[QUOTE=HubZilla]
The racism American whites have for blacks (and other races) simply pales in comparison to a lot of other cultures and countries. Zimbabwe, Brazil, and Japan for some examples. Or places where simple skin shading opens and closes doors.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, my personal experience with Brazil thusfar has been that there is significantly less racism, or at least tension between the races, in that country than many other places (certainly less than I’ve seen in the U.S.) partially because a large number of the population is mixed race (Wiki claims 38.5% mulatto in a recent census).
You have a different experience? I know that personally, I have never felt the slightest tension while in Brazil with my wife (as a mixed-race couple), while back in the good ol’ USA, we tend to get comments and menacing stares from both races (more from black than white, in fact).
[QUOTE=pizzabrat]
I’m not that well versed in the conflict in Rwanda, but which side is bent on world domination based on a hierarchal categorization of mankind that places them at the top, like the Nazis were? Or was WWII just about Nazis vs. Jews? Is that what World War II was? The German war between the Nazi’s and the Jews?
Sorry, I can’t figure out how noticing that some whites are transparently over-eager to trumpet non-white examples of racism reveals a patronizing attitude in myself towards dark skinned people. I’m not trying to reassure anyone of anything. You must have misunderstood my attempt to correct a misuse of language to mean that I’m apologizing for the Rwandan genocide. I’m intellectually able to find a conflict somewhere unjust and horrible while rejecting incorrect assessment of it.
[/QUOTE]
It doesn’t seem likely we’ll agree, I suppose.
To your point about which side is “bent on world domination based on a hierarchical categorization that places them at the top…” , well that’s a condition of all humans, and most other species that have ever existed. Our evolutionary biology favors reproductive success above all else, and for the most part the sequence is self-preservation above family; family preservation above clan; clan preservation above tribe and tribe above all outsiders.
Every successful population must compete, in evolutionary terms, to reproduce its subset of genes. As humans have grown increasingly intelligent in their evolution, that atavistic tendency is overlaid with secondary derivatives such as culture, philosophy, and a sense of moral or ethical consideration. Concomitant with that growth in intelligence is the expansion of the ability for destruction.
So…while it is true that very successful populations (successful in terms of their ability to make war on the weak as well as make nice with their philosophy) have been most able to dominate, to elucidate hierarchical schemas promoting their superiority, and to come closest to world domination, it is not true that their fundamental “racist” condition is any different from other, less successful, human populations.
The fact that populations of Chinese, Japanese and Europeans (for instance) have been better at dominating their world does not make them any more racist than their competitor populations. They are just more successful at imposing their collective will. And in the case of Europeans, at least, now more open about trying to overcome what is a natural tribe-centric atavistic drive.
The guilt-ridden self-flagellation of many European-descended populations accomplishes nothing and reflects an inappropriately pejorative view of world history. Just 'cuz we defined it, recognized it, practiced it, and then tried to stamp out racism doesn’t mean we invented it, and it sure as heck doesn’t mean we’re the only participants or even the chief sinners.